Since there were no further comments, I have marked the voting policy as an adopted policy now. Let's vote away!
2017-07-06 17:28 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
Changed the draft wrt macro languages and BCP: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=16968705&oldid=16781951
2017-07-04 20:27 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, yes and we reached consensus about the ones we use. There is a concern and having a two third majority should be no problem. We do have ISO 639-3 macro languages, they should be avoided. Thanks, GerardM
On 4 July 2017 at 20:19, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
Gerard,
We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags.
Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble.
On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a
two third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having them and we should try to prevent them as they are often more of a political than linguistic reality.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote: One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
- No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
- Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
- 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
- Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom